catapult magazine

apparently the editorial staff at the [i:00d6f85f83]lariat[/i:00d6f85f83], baylor university’s school newspaper, caused quite a ruckus with a recent editorial promoting gay marriage. the president of the college responded with his own editorial and roberto riverais offered his opinion at the wilberforce forum web site.

i haven’t had a chance to read the original editorial or president sloan’s response, but mr. riverais’ opinion was annoying.

what do you think?

I don’t agree with his line of reasoning that tries to connect the mindsets that spawned the Lariat editorial with Christian acceptance of birth control. I do, however, agree with his general feeling that the Lariat editorial was misguided in its arguments.

Whether I think homosexual marriage is moral and Biblical aside, I’m tired of the proponents of gay marriage likening the cause to the civil rights movement. There are some very important distinctions between the push for gay marriage and the civil rights movement: 1) MLK Jr. recognized that he was not above the law and he would pay a penalty when he broke the law, regardless of how unjust he thought the laws were; 2) MLK never acted under the cover of government authority, unlike the mayor of San Fran who has declared himself above the law in that state and is issuing marriage licenses on his own initiative.

I think the Baylor administration shouldn’t be so worried about the actual point the students were trying to make and their eternal damnation because of such (that was a joke … or was it?), but rather the lame-ass demonstration of logic and reasoning they displayed in their editorial.

I am not sure the Administration should be WORRIED about the lack of logic. It is a college, after all. College newspapers have had poorly though-out editorials since time began. The trick is to TEACH those students, right?

Actually, I was being facetious … although I do think that many people graduate from college with an inability to reason and argue their way out of a paperbag. I believe that a good education equips students with those skills, be it deliberately taught or merely gained and strengthened through interactions with people not like oneself. I think it’s especially important for Christians to possess those skills. And the fact those kids are budding journalists (maybe) … shiver. I’m not saying the administration needs to agree with WHAT they’re saying, but the WAY in which they tried to make their point was weak – which possibly shows no mental discipline or fortitude when dealing in the “real world.”

So yeah, a bad editorial with horrible reasoning on behalf of America’s up-and-coming journalists should be cause for concern to SOME degree. But again, I was mainly being facetious by bringing up this sidenote.

here’s some more background on wilberforce forum’s views on marriage.

Laurencer, what did you find annoying about Rivera’s response? Too knee-jerk? I’m curious mostly because he is a former coworker and friend of mine.

His article on this topic reminded me of a lot of what I’ve been hearing in a Christian marriage and family class at a Catholic university, especially the part about the pitfalls of delinking sex and procreation. This is an area where it seems most evangelicals have largely bought into the prevailing views of culture—accepting the Pill and most other non-abortificant forms of contraception without much question. The thoughts and practices of Catholic parishioners aside, the Catholic church has maintained that an integral part of the sacramentality of marriage is its procreative function. Even within marriage, sex isn’t just recreational, but a covenant-ratifying gesture and a life-giving act (for the couple and potentially producing new life). And it seems to me that they might be onto something.

It’s no accident that the Pill’s debut and widespread acceptance in culture went hand-in-hand with the Sexual Revolution. Much of Margaret Sanger’s marketing strategy, in fact, was based on the idea that experience of orgasm is THE quintessential experience of human existence—because of its potential for ecstatic release. (Hmmm—any parallels to worship here? Apparently our hearts are restless not until they rest in God but until they rest in sex.) If sex has this much potential, we need to be able to PRACTICE as often as possible without the threat of any undesired consequences, so the logic goes.

I’m not trying to say that birth control is an unqualified evil or that every sexual act must be potentially procreative. But I do think that the Pill has brought with it a wealth of negative baggage. I could pontificate at length about various pieces of that baggage, but since this is supposed to be a post about gay marriage, I’ll try to stick with the relevant material. Certainly the Pill isn’t single-handedly responsible for turning sex into a mere (but allegedly much better) alternative to eating chocolate or playing golf, but technology is never neutral. It made it extremely easy to divorce sexual acts from the natural fruit of sexual acts. And in so doing, it helped usher in a whole new sexual ethos in culture.

What I’m trying to say is that I agree with Rivera that our collective views about heterosexual sex and marriage (evangelicals not exempted) have made the idea that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman hard to support. Evangelicals are generally pretty counter-cultural in their discouragement of premarital or extramarital sex, and the lingerie at Christian bridal showers is arguably a bit less racey than it is at most. But what about our views on the purpose of sex and the purpose of marriage? Seems that general consensus among the culture is that both are for pleasure and personal fulfillment. With this is mind, gay marriage is only logical. Does a Chrstian understanding have anything more to contribute?

I’m no biologist, but it seems pretty clear to me that God made sex and babies to go together (at least some of the time—I don’t want to get into too much trouble here). Is that normative or incidental?

well, first of all, i have a prima facie disdain for anyone who says things about their “prima facie disdain for anyone between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five.” while riverais may be dismayed by the disconnect between marriage and procreation evidenced by the [i:6a23fb5399]lariat[/i:6a23fb5399] editorial board, treating these individuals with such a lack of respect isn’t going to help matters.

though i can agree that this disconnect is crucial to the debate, suggesting that a proper view of marriage hinges on the necessity of procreation is absurd to me. this idea essentially makes marriage about having children, which is as narraw a view as riverais is condemning. the implications of this view are disturbing, such as wanton disregard for social justice issues in the name of marital duty (having as many kids as humanly possible).

i have more to say, but not enough time to say it right now. also, i’m not exactly sure how these things all fit together yet . . .

It is scripturally incorrect for Christians to be promoting gay marriage, or gay relationships of any kind. This is abomination to God, and is un-acceptable for His people to agree with. How can two walk together unless they be in agreement?

Since God disagrees with the gay lifestyle, Christians are obligated to also disagree…unless they don’t care what God think and decide to go their own way.

God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows…that shall he also reap!

Correction: in the case of gay relationships, a man is not likely to reap what he sows.

Galatians 6:7,8 says "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap….for he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Those that practice homosexuality of any kind WILL reap corruption which is another word for destruction. This kind of lifestyle can easily cost you your life at an early age and cause you to end up in a place that is very, very warm :shock:

Greg, I can understand your anger if it comes from a bad childhood experience or if you tend to be around the kind of people who find it normal to spew hate like this. But in case you are concerned with the precident set by Jesus concerning those considered to be sexual deviants, I suggest you take a look at his approach to prostitutes. Then compare Jesus’ approach to the fundamentalist Pharisees who wanted to punish them with death. He who is without sin, cast the first stone indeed.